KenmoreRulesAll

I've found that flash does a machine no favors. It's far better to have a lot of ambient light with one or more light sources (preferably incandescent) pointed toward but not directly at the machine in order to get the chrome to really shine. As others have written, natural light is best.

I've found that cameras in auto mode will adjust for color, often saturating the shot by changing the RBG values of each pixel as the chip processes the image and commits to memory. Sometimes this is preferred but sometimes I want the true color of the image the lens is capturing. I don't yet know enough about my cameras to set defaults, limit this kind of pre-processing, etc. And the color levels are different between manufacturers and even models, as each have algorithms that determine how the image will appear; often the LCD doesn't quite represent what is stored on the card.

J Miller

Maria,

Thanks. When my camera is on "P" for Program the ISO is set at 100. The picture size is still 640x480, but when it's on auto the camera chooses the ISO and everything else. This thing is just a small computer and it baffles me for the most part. I still haven't figured out how to find, let alone change the shutter speed. I had just began to learn how to do that on my old Canon AE-1 when I got the digitals. They are totally different and I am not cognizant of their idiosyncrasies.
I do have an owners manual but it is written for a computer literate camera geek, which I am not.

I never could figure how how to make my Canon Rebel 2000 or the D-60 SLRs work. So they spent their time on auto.

Were it not for spending so much time on the internet I'd still be using my film cameras.


Joe

manicmike

I read the manual for mine (Nikon D3000) because they're ridiculously complex, and it's true they encourage laziness.

I've seen pictures on eBay where people have a satin sheet as a backdrop and another as a tablecloth. My first thought was "They must be charging a lot" (they weren't): It sure looked nice though.
I can't be bothered with that sort of thing and fall back to trying to make sure there's nothing too embarrassing in the shot. Professionals get paid to bother.

So the upshot of all this is you should read your manual, particularly if you don't know what the symbols mean. I fooled around with all the settings, then set it to auto after I briefly set it to manual focus then all my shots turned out looking as if my camera wasn't wearing its glasses.

Rodney

I like my old film cameras too. I used a Canon AT-1 my mom and dad gave me for my 13th birthday for many years. That one was all manual with a built in light meter. I really love that old camera though I haven't used it in years.
I think I would just about prefer the same setup but with digital storage. When a picture didn't turn out it was pretty easy to tell who was at fault-me.

Unless you prefer point and shoot I think the digital cameras do too much for you. You really have to understand your camera to get past all the defaults and set up the exposures and focus you want instead of what the camera thinks you want. I haven't taken the time with our current one (Nikon Coolpix) to figure it all out.
Rodney

KenmoreRulesAll

I guess I approach these vintage machines for their aesthetic value as much as any other quality (reliability, stitch quality, smoothness, power, etc.). As I learn to sew, perhaps my perspective will change but how a machine looks or will look after I've cleaned/polished it is a primary factor in whether I purchase. Exchanging photos is something I really enjoy and seeing that someone has taken the effort to show the machine in the best light is something I appreciate because the machine's beauty is what I'm into. Many of these sewing machine companies had very talented design teams and I always notice photo quality.

I have two vintage film SLRs and although I can still use them, they're a bit of a pain now that I'm fully into the DSLR and micro 4/3 formats. (I haven't quite brought myself to throwing them out, though.) Digitally, I have a Panasonic Lumix 4/3 that is considered a 'bridge' camera (almost small enough to be a point-and-shoot/compact but with interchangeable lenses and with DSLR features) and an Olympus Evolt e-510, an old 4/3 model in mint condition that looks like it was never used. Even the packaging looks untouched. Both take great shots; rather, both would take great shots were it not for operator error.

I still need a cheap point-and-shoot that I can just whip out of my pocket, flip the power switch, and in less than 2 seconds be ready to shoot. Fixed lens, optical (not digital) zoom, and 720p video quality is just fine. The Lumix is too big and slow, although the video quality is very high.

SewExtremeSeams

I haven't posted any photos of my machines lately but my method is to point and shoot from my iPhone and from my Lumix camera. Sometimes evening light or morning light will give me a better photo.

My Lumix is a pocket camera I guess since it doesn't have interchangeable lenses. It is the best bang for my buck. I have taken wonderful photos with it for about 3 or 4 years.

tate_elliott

I'm not always happy with my photos, but I usually try to put a cloth backdrop behind the machine for two reasons. First, the room is usually cluttered and is distracting. And because the details of the machine may blend in with items in the room behind it.

You'll laugh, but my backdrop stand is my kid's cheap telescope on a tripod. The telescope is turned horizontal, sometimes with a yardstick placed on top to widen the backdrop, with a piece of cloth thrown over it.

Tate

foufymaus

i use my lg g2 phone. lol it has auto photo sync to my online photo account. :-)

Cari-in-Oly

You know, most all of this just goes right over my head. I told you I'm no photographer. But.... You my friend are. Your pictures here, to other groups and to Flickr have given you away.

Cari

vintagequilter

I tried to upload photos and only was able to post one, with that siad i am not novice
computer but the website is a bit confusing in my profile.